On 10/1/2011 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

## Advertising

On 01 Oct 2011, at 09:31, Russell Standish wrote:On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:02:28PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:OK. But note that in this case you are using the notion of 3-OM (or computational state), not Bostrom notion of 1-OM (or my notion of first person state). The 3-OM are countable, but the 1-OMs are not.Could you explain more why you think this? AFAICT, Bostrom makes no mention of the cardinality of his OMs.I don't think that Bostrom mentions the cardinality of his OMs, indeed. I don't thinkthat he clearly distinguish the 1-OMs and the 3-OMs either. By "3-OM" I refer to thecomputational state per se, as defined relatively to the UD deployment (UD*). Those areclearly infinite and countable, even recursively countable.The 1-OMs, for any person, are not recursively countable, indeed by an application of atheorem of Rice, they are not even 3-recognizable. Or more simply because you cannotknow your substitution level. In front of some portion of UD*, you cannot recognize your1-OMs in general. You cannot say "I am here, and there, etc." But they are (nonconstructively) well defined. "God" can know that you are here, and there, ...

`Wouldn't that require that all the infinite UD calculations be completed before all the`

`"you" could be indentified?`

And the measure on the 1-OMs should be defined on those unrecognizable 1-OMs.Are the 1-OMs countable? In the quote above, I say that they are not countable. What Imeant by this is related to the measure problem, which cannot be made on the statesthemselves, but, I think, on the computational histories going through them, and,actually, on *all* computational histories going through them. This includes the dummyhistories which duplicate you iteratively through some processes similar to the infiniteiteration of the WM self-duplication. Even if you don't interact with the output (here:W or M) or the iteration, such computations multiplies in the non-countable infinity. (Iam using implictly the fist person indeterminacy, of course). Those computation willhave the shape:you M you M you W you M You W You W You W You M ad infinitumThis gives a white noise, which is not necessarily available to you, but it stillmultiplies (in the most possible dumb way) your computational histories. Such infinitecomputations, which are somehow dovetailing on the reals (infinite sequence of W and M)have a higher measure than any finite computations and so are good candidates for the"winning" computations. Note that such an infinite background noise, although notdirectly accessible through your 1-OMs, should be experimentally detectable when youlook at yourselves+neighborhood below the substitution level, and indeed QM confirmsthis by the many (up + down) superposition states of the particles states in the(assumed to be infinite) multi-universes.

`But aside from the quantum level, doesn't the measure problem have the same drawback and`

`Boltzman's brains. Shouldn't I find myself in a world where everyone is Brent Meeker?`

This might be also confirmed by some possible semantics for the logic of the firstperson points of view (the quantified logic qS4Grz1, qX1* have, I think, non countableimportant models).3-OMs are relatively simple objects, but 1-OMs are more sophisticated, and are definedtogether with the set of all computations going through their correspondent states.To be sure, I am not entirely persuaded that Bostrom's 1-OMs makes sense with digitalmechanism, and usually I prefer to use the label of first person experiences/histories.With the rule Y = II, that is: a bifurcation of a computations entails a doubling of themeasure even on its "past" (in the UD steps sense), this makes clear that we have acontinuum of infinite histories.Again, this is made more complex when we take amnesia and fusion of histories) intoconsideration.I hope this helps a bit. In my opinion, only further progress on the "hypostases" modallogics will make it possible to isolate a reasonable definition of 1-OMs, whichobviously is a quite intricate notion.Bruno-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EverythingList" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.